>Regarding the substance of RDE's remarks, however, I feel comfortable
>expressing a strong dissent. There are, I think, several issues which
>need to be separated. One is the value or permissibility of taking a
>side in this controversy. Second is the viability of RDE's perspective
>("they are both tzadikim"). Third is whether RDE's criticism of David
>Glasner's conduct is justified. I will address these issues in reverse
>order.
In the Chassidic community the Rebbe Reb Yonason E is very highly regarded. I
saw somewhere that the Baal Shem Tov commented on the controversy by saying
that HaShem allowed it to happen since had he not done so R. Yakov Emden
would have come out against the chassidim. Since he was occupied with RR
Yonason, he had no time for him. As I said seforimg from BOTH are learned. The
Emden siddur is used by many, and RR Yonason's seforim are learned. The
controversy, while acknowleged, is basically ignored. I think that a well
known story explains why. Once there was a controversy between two Rebbes. One
of the Chasidim ventured to take sides. One of the Rebbes, turned to him and
told him the following story. Once there were two craftsman who were working
on a crown for the king. They were arguing about where to place a particular
stone. A person came along and saw them arguing, and ventured an opinion. The
craftsman turned to him and said, why are you voiceing yoru opinion. We are
both craftsman, and base our views on our craft. But you have no knowledge of
these matters.
--
Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus Chassidus Website

>but it is not. I personallly would be grateful for as much clarification
>as to the objectionability of Sabbatean Kabbala as possible.
There were two major points I have seen. (R. Moshe Chaim Luzzato has a sefer
against SZ and his Kabbalistic ideas.) 1. That being the Moshiach the time had
come to nullify mitzvos. 2. The is a need to enter the sitra achra and violate
the Torah to raise it up.
--
Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus Chassidus Website

Clark, Eli wrote:
> Pressed to summarize RDE's view on the RYE/RYE controversy, I would boil
> it down to four words: The Gedolim have spoken.
>
> I had suggested that there may still be value to taking sides. But RDE
> notes that such value exists only so long as no consensus has developed
> (e.g., regarding the Lubavitcher Rebbe).
>
> While I stated that I thought it important to consider whether R.
> Emden's accusations were true or false in reading his halakhic works or
> that of R. Eyebeschetz, RDE demurs:
>
> >If Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Moshe Feinstein - knowing full well the
> >implication of your well articulated problem - did not see fit to take
> >sides between Rav Yonasan and Rav Yaakov - who are we?
>
> I wrote that embracing both RYE and RYE as tzadikim was irrational. RDE
> responds:
>
> >The fact that there is a consensus of gedolim on this issue - that both are
> >to be viewed as tzadikim -precludes the viability of any ben Torah
> >from taking a public stand against it.
>
> (3) In any case, this amounts to an application of da'at Torah to a
> historical question, which I do not believe is binding on any ben Torah.
>
I appreciate your patience in clarifying these issues. I detect that what is
really bothering you is not the possibility that the Gedolim - by their silence
- don't want public debate on this issue. What disturbs you is the possibility
that someone is telling you not to rely on the evidence of your own senses. This
is not what I am asserting. I have repeated a good number of times - that what
is of concern is the issue of a public debate on whether Rav Yonasan was a
heretic. What a person concludes in private is not subject to this limitation. I
quoted the Chofetz Chaim concerning Lashon HaRah - a person has no obligation to
be stupid. If some evidence comes your way that constitutes a threat to your
well being - you can act on it. But unless it meets certain criterion - you can
not publicize it. I gather that some of you feel that this discussion group is
equivalent to a chaburah in yeshiva or a conversation around your Shabbos table.
In fact as Rabbi Bechoffer pointed out concerning another issue - this is very
much a reshus harabbim. I am not asserting that a person is not allowed to think
about the debate. I am not saying that one should not study the historical
manuscripts, books etc. I am not saying not to discuss it with your rosh yeshiva
or chavrusa. What I did say was that deciding between these two giants and
publicly announcing that you have decided that one or both of these gedolim was
really a heretic constitutes slander. This is because it is obvious that there
is a consensus amongst talmidei chochomim that that is not the way that *this*
conflict should be handled. This is not hiding from reality, this is not mind
control or brain washing. This is the reality. The silence of the gedolim *and*
their continued utilization of the seforim of both of these gedolim tells me
that is the way this issue is to be dealt with. If you tell me that Rav
Lichtenstein or Rav Kook or the Satmehr Rebbe has said otherwise - I have no
problem. But until someone produces a certified statement of a gadol that
disagrees with my assertion - I stand by my position that action to the contrary
is slander.
> In contrast, I am not aware of even one
> 20th century gadol who has explicitly addressed the issue and determined
> that they were both tzadikim. Of course, I am no authority on this
> issue, and I would be happy to learn otherwise. What I see is that the
> olam ha-yeshivot freely uses the sefarim of both RYE and RYE. But I
> believe that may reflect a willingness to be ma'alim ayin from the
> issue, rather than an explicit hekhsher of both as tzadikim.
The utilization of the seforim indicates more than an ostritch-like approach. As
you have pointed out - if a sefer is written by a heretic - use is problematic.
> RDE notes that the debate between the hasidim and mitnagedim was equally
> rancorous, but we now view both sides as tzadikim. But, fundamentally,
> that was a debate regarding derekh ha-hayyim. The consensus today is
> that both derakhim are valid.
If you look at the literature (e.g., Wilensky "Chassidim and Misnagdim") on the
debate, heresy *was* a significant issue. There is no problem discussing the
fact that the Chassidm were originally viewed as heretics and that now they are
not.
> If someone sincerely believed that a
> contemporary gadol, say R. Elyashiv, was, hallilah, a kofer and
> plastered his claims all over Yerushalayim and Bnei Brak and published
> books attacking him, would you feel the person was simply a misguided,
> le-shem Shamayim tzadik or would you think this guy should be locked up?
Not every dispute can be resolved in a nice neat way identifying the good guy
and punishing the bad guy.. Look at the peace process with the Arabs. Do we have
a rule that anyone who ever killed a Jew must be forever publicly attacked? It
depends on the consequence. Is there a rule that heretics should be killed? The
Chazon Ish says the rule is inoperative where it doesn't aid society. Is there a
rule that murderers can only be executed with Sanhedrin with proper witness and
warning? Rav Moshe explicitly poskens that any society has a right to ensure its
survival and the death penalty is a viable option.
In real life much depends upon the consequences of the alternatives. There was a
story published in the English Yated concerning the Chazon Ish. Someone
mentioned that the Chofetz Chaim was finally going to make aliyah. The Chazon
Ish responded that it would never happen. When the person asked whether he had
ruach hakodesh that enabled him to deny a known fact, he replied, "That it was
simply a logical conclusion. It is well known that the Chafetz Chaim holds Rav
Kook in high regard. If the Choftez Chaim comes he will obviously be seen as a
supporter of Rav Kook. As a consequence the Mishna Berura will be thrown out.
Since it is obviously the ratzon HaShem that the Mishna Berura remain an
authoritative work - the Chofetz Chaim obviously will never come to Israel."
> Moreover, I think that the concerns that may have existed at the time of
> the Noda Bi-Yehudah are not so strong today. R. Eyebeschetz, I have
> been told, could be described as the R. Moshe Feinstein of his day. R.
> Ya'akov Emden, too, was very prominent. At a time when they had such
> preeminent status, and even shortly after, the potential for hillul
> Hashem and degradation of kavod ha-Torah was incalculable.
I have heard arguments that the dispute essentially destroyed the authority of
the rabbinate in the 1700's and thus prepared the ground for the chassidic
revolution. I agree that a renewal of the debate is not likely to be of this
significance. My point, again is that there is no benefit publicly raising an
issue that is ultimately not resolvable and has been dealt with by unanimous
public silence on the part of all talmidei chachomim. Why don't you ask Rav
Lichtenstein whether he agrees with you?
> in truth, I lack authoritative kowledge on the consensus question,
> so I will assume for the sake of argument that there is an explicit
> consensus on this issue, and I will grant that virtually all gedolim,
> past and present, have decided that both were tzadikim. Does this
> foreclose any other possibility for a ben Torah? RDE says yes.
>
> I believe RDE's position amounts to an application of da'at Torah on a
> historical issue. ... It is accepted that kavod ha-Torah dictates deferring to
> the will and
> judgement of our gedolim. For purposes of this issue, however, I will
> limit my demurral: I think da'at Torah has no application to historical
> questions. I present two illustrations:
>
> As RDE knows better than I, R. Moshe wrote two teshuvot regarding a
> perush on the Torah apparently authored by R. Yehudah ha-Hasid.
> However, the manuscript contained a number of statements ascribing the
> authorship of certain biblical passages to someone other than Moshe.
> Citing the Rambam's well-known formulation on the subject, R. Moshe
> concluded that such statements could not have been written by R. Yehudah
> ha-Hasid and ruled that the book should be published with the offending
> passages removed.
Your description of Rav Moshe's position is inaccurate and in fact reinforces
my assertion. There is no such thing as an absolute need to delve into every
issue - *if* the consequences lead to great harm.
Rav Moshe specifically said *before* the book was published that even with the
offending passages it should not be published. YD.III #114 on page 359
"therefore it is pashut that it is prohibited to publish the sefer and it is
worse than sifrei minim in which the name of the min who is the author is
written on it because in this latter case even the most unlearned will not
believe what it says but when the name of Rav Yehuda HaChasid is written on this
book we have to be concerned that this will lead to error and people will
become kofrim because of it. Therefore it is clear that it is definitely
prohibited because of a greater issur of leading the public astray. I DECLARE
THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED AT ALL AND NOT EVEN THE REMAINING PASSAGES
because it is possible that we can not check it properly and we can never be
sure of the validity of the passages..."
He concluded *after* the book was published. YDIII 115 page 361, "Therefore
concerning a sefer from one of our sages that the wicked have introduced forged
material to mislead people into thinking that these[ heretical ideas] were
written by a great tzadik c.v. WE CAN NOT RELY ON OUR REMOVAL OF WHAT WE HAVE
NOTED ALREADY - THERE IS OBVIOUSLY MORE PROBLEMATIC MATERIAL THAT WE HAVE
MISSED in our reading so far. Therefore it is necessary to physically destroy -
by burning - this work. And this is a greater merit to Rav Yehudah HaChasid that
people are not misled by his authoritative name to accept these things EVEN IF
IT MEANS THAT WE DO NOT PRESERVE THOSE GOOD THINGS WHICH HE ACTUALLY WROTE
Because there is no obligation or mitzva for a person to learn the works of all
our sages - an impossible task - he should learn only those that have proper
reputation. However, since this forged sefer has already been published- we no
longer have the possibility of concealing this whole matter. Therefore it should
be announced that this sefer on Chumash in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid is
a forgery and it has to be destroyed."
> As a matter of precise characterization, I think it wrong to say that R.
> Moshe "paskened" that R. Yehudah ha-Hasid was not the author of these
> passages. The authorship of the passages is a historical question, and
> one that is not readily resolvable by reference to the Rambam's
> definition of kefirah. So too, whatever consensus may exist in the
> Torah world regarding the RYE/RYE controversy, that consensus does not
> carry halakhic weight, because the issue is a historical one, not a
> halakhic one.
Rav Moshe did not posken on the historical reality - he poskened on the derech
that this issue should be handled. He was not concerned with history per se- he
was concerned with the consequences of publishing a sefer with offensive
passages with the name of a well known tzadik. In the course of the tshuva he
asserts that Rav Yehuda HaChasid could not have written these passages.
> A related issue once came up in the Jewish Observer. As I recall, an
> article was written about Moses Mendelssohn which noted that, contrary
> to popular belief, he was not the first Reform Jew, but someone who kept
> Taryag mitzvot and fought primarily for Jews to be treated as equals.
> This article prompted a response from none other than R. Shimon Schwab
> z.t.l. He wrote that these historical facts about Mendelssohn should
> not have been published, because, as a practical matter, his ideas led
> to Reform and the undermining of Torah. (Those who can recapitulate his
> argument in greater detail are welcome to do so.)
The response was from the Noviminsker Rebbe.
Rabbi Shwab - to the best of my knowledge never advocated distorting history. He
writes however, in volume I of his collected writings that history is concerned
with knowing what happened. He states that relating of information that contains
lashon harah and serves the purpose only of degrading talmidei chachomim and not
of elevating and improving - is not permitted. In other words his position was
simply not to discuss material which constituted slander and lashon harah. He
did not advocate lying and saying things that did not happen. His controversial
writings concerning chronology illustrate this point. The Chazon Ish BTW said
that it is only permitted to speak lashon harah about gedolei Torah - when there
is a to'eles. However for the average rabbi that people are not influenced by
there is no permission. In sum - everyone agrees the halacha of lashon harah and
slander revolves around to'eles.
> My rebbe, R. Lichtenstein, has repeatedly voiced his belief that a lack
> of historical sensibility is one of the shortcomings of the haredi
> community today.
I agree that it is important to study history. Rav Hutner (In his collected
writings) makes a similar assertion - that it is important to know the failings
as well as the successes of gedoim This again is only when there is a to'eles.
As Rabbi Yisroel Salanter said, "Not everything you think should you say, not
everything you say should you write, not everything you write should you publish
".
In sum, I am not asserting that the consensus of gedolim (ie da'as Torah) to
regard both Rav Yaakov and Rav Yonason as tzadikim is a halachic imperative of
mind control. I am asserting that it dictates the way we talk about them
publicly. Since the prohibition of lashon harah is entirely dependent on the
issue of to'eles - the above indicates that gedoim view that there is no
to'eles in labeling either gadol as a sinner. Publicly announcing a contrary
position is slander. There is no such concept in Torah - that we can say and do
what ever we want - and let the chips fall where they may. That is a secular
concept. Finally - my reading of history is that Rav Yonason was a tzadik and
that Rav Yaakov had justification for his attack - given the context of those
times - but was wrong. See Shem HaGedolim's comment about his writings of the
Zohar.
Daniel Eidensohn

mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com wrote:
>
> "The only people who should be learning in
> Kolel full time are those individuals who truely have the potential to
> be Gedolei Hador. "
>
> What about the person who could be a great 5th grade rebbie who might
> produce gedolei hador (and other fine Jews) who needs 5 years in kollel to
> be prepared for that?
The time elements involved in my suggestion are not fixed in stone nor
are they the essence of my point. I never advocated leaving learning
after 1 or 2 years. I only suggested that after an intial period of
learning only one should consider simultaneous training in a parnassah
of some sort whether it be going to college, proffesional school or
vocational school. One's time of uninterupted learning post high school
can vary from person to person based on his goals. It can be one year
for person A and 5 years for person B. The point is that it should be
goal oriented. As I stated, the chinuch proffesion is a fine and noble
proffesion and perhaps 5 years of learning is not enough. Of course, I
believe that learning alone is not enough to be a decent teacher. There
are many other requirements outside of learning one meeds to fulfill in
order to be a decent teacher. My sole objection is to the type of
Yungerman you might find in Kollel Chazon Ish in Bnei Brak. There are
Avreichim there in their forties with an average of 6 or 7 children with
absolutly no clue about parnassah as a value on par with learning. Many
there are stuck at age 40 or 45 with no training at all in any form of
parnassah.
>
> " For the most of rest of us, the process should go
> something like this: Post high school - 1 or 2 years of uniterupted
> learning. Then, learning in conjuction with an eye towards contributing
> in some other way to klal Israel, whether it be in pursuit of a career
> in chinuch, or some other profession. (Ala Y.U., H.T.C., or Ner Israel)"
>
> Since this is basically what I did, and Rav Breuor Zt"l shita in "a
> time to build" I can't knock it - but is it necessarily good for everyone
> to be on the same system?
The system I would endorse is one that allows for diversity of purpose
on the part of each student. Without trying to sound too self serving,
my own son is in the Mir Yerushalim Kollel for his sixth year and I
heartily endorse his being there because he does have that type of
potential and the Roshei Yeshiva there have taken an interest in him.
But there are 3500 students in the Mir. I really don't believe all of
them should be there. Consevetively speaking I would suggest that about
2500 should be thinking about preparing for some career outside of
learning full time. Unfortunately, all too few of those 2500 have any
thoughts like this and are illprepared for the future.
>
> "R. Aaron Soloveichik has stated many times both in print and in word
> that the concept of "Vehogiso Bo Yomim VaLaila" which applies to all of
> us, applies differently to those who are potnetial Gedolei HaDor. "
>
> I assume Rav Aharon's oponion is based on the Ohr Semayach on RAMBAM
> hilchos talmud torah that says that the chiyuv of vhegosom is not in the
> chumash because different people have different capabilities and it would
> not be fair for the Torah to command such. Still is learning Torah and I
> idea about fufilling one owns potential, or is it a minor leagues for
> producing public superstars?
I believe both your above statements are true and do not disagree with
my ideology regarding kollelim.
I agree if people are giving money to Kollel
> on that assumption then the kollel should follow it, but if that is true I
> think it is unfortunate.
>
> "Now, of course, no one should be denied the opportunity to learn full
> time for as long as he wants. This will enable the "late Bloomers" to
> blossom late. The problem is THERE IS NO GUIDANCE! If someone goes into
> learning full time and thinks he just may be a late bloomer then HE
> SHOULD DO IT INFORMED, AND WITH HIS EYES WIDE OPEN! As I have stated an
> almost infinite number of times, it seems that Roshei Kollel do NOT
> encourage the majority of their talmidim who will NEVER BE Gedolim to
> look for other ways in which their talents can be utilized to better
> purpose. Instead, they allow the Status Quo to exist wherein there are
> many Yungeleit who are encouraged to spend the best years of their lives
> learning "relatively well" and then "all of a sudden" they have a large
> family with absolutlely no training in any form for parnasah and a poor
> attitude about the work ethic. (e.g. "Of course I will only work a half
> day on Friday because I have to prepare for Shabbos"!!!)"
>
> I really think this is an unfair assesment of what goes on, and for a
> darchei noam perspective unnecessary. On a halachik note see the Mishnah
> Brurah, and other poskim, at the begginig of chelek 3 about working erev
> shabbos. Based on such, and other, reasons my Harvard law School educated
> boss who never spent a day in Yeshivah leaves three hours before candle
> lighting, and while I don't know if he has to i think it's commendable.
It is certainly comendable and I myself try not to work past noon on
Friday and most often succeed in doing so. I am in buisness for myself
and am able to do this. I was reffering to the lack of understanding on
the part of some Avreichim who are suddenly thrust into the work place
and have unrealistic denmands on the job market. I know of one Avreich
who was finally cobnvinced by his wife to leave the kollel and work to
support them beyond the near poverty level they were on. One of his
freinds was a successful buisinessman who was sympathetic to Kollel
Yungeleit who needed jobs and gave them employment. So instead of
offering gratitude to his potential new boss,he demanded not to work on
Fridays in a buisiness that could not allow this type of flexibity.
>
> "I think it is wrong."
>
> Do you have high level sources for this?
My source is the well known Mishnah in Avos that states: Yaffa Talmud
Torah Im Derech Eretz . Vechol Torah She Ayn Imoh Melacha Sofah
Betailah. Shyegias Shneihem Mishcachas Avon.
I know there has been much discussion on this list about R' Moshe
Feinstein's teshuva regarding the neccesity today to learn full time
because there is just too much to learn and we nowadays need to devote
full time to learning and we no longer have the luxury to do as the
Rambam did and also work too support ourselves. I also, saw R. Moshe's
Teshuva on learning and going to college. If memory serves he is
against it for the same reason. But R. Aaron tells the story of how an
Uncle of his who was brilliant and was learning in Voloshin by his
grandfather, R. Chaim. That uncle always wanted to be a Doctor. So he
asked R. Chaim if he should go to college and then Medical school. R.
Chaim's answrer was, "Of course you should. You'll be matzil Nefoshos."
Mind you this was at a time when few frum people went to college and
from no less a kanai against secular education then R. Chaim Brisker.
R. Aaron concluded his story by telling us that his uncle went on to
become a famous doctor in Europe. Even though R. Moshe paskin'd as he
does, it is not a final psak l'doros.
HM
> MAL, Esq.

OK, let me clarify my personal interest here, and add a comment on
process.
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Moshe Shulman wrote:
> There were two major points I have seen. (R. Moshe Chaim Luzzato has a
> sefer against SZ and his Kabbalistic ideas.) 1. That being the Moshiach
> the time had come to nullify mitzvos. 2. The is a need to enter the
> sitra achra and violate the Torah to raise it up.
>
This I know - and more.
But...
It is axiomatic by me (forgive yeshiveshe jargon, please!) that RYEb was a
yerei shomayim, shomer torah u'mitzvos, m'dakdek b'kalla k'ba'chamura -
and far beyond. It is clear to me, also, that RYEm knew this to be the
case - but felt that there was a subtle sub-surface inclination towards
Sabbateanism in RYEb's theology and or writings. Since RYEb, unlike SZ
sr"y, was not a sinner and clearly had no drive to utilize Sabbateanism as
license for issurim and pritzus - as the bulk of Sabbateans, and,
subsequently Frankists, did - and still do, in the Donma sect - he, from
RYEm perspective, was clearly smitten with some enticing theologocical
and/or Kabbalistic doctrines that emanated from the Sabbatean schools that
somehow could be mistaken to be compatible with proper, mainstream Avodas
Hashem. I have never seen an exposition of what those doctrines might be.
They are clearly not the major Sabbatean trends, succinctly cited by R'
Moshe above. But what might they be?
As to process, my hope in promoting baistefila, now incorporated in
Avodah, was to bring together as many of the knowledgable individuals in
Orthodoxy in order to promote discussion of precisely such nekudos. I am
afraid that this topic might prove so obscure that even our august group
does not possess sufficient knowledge to tackle it (although I suspect
that it is more the case that there are those who can - I am thinking of
at least one person - but will, nevertheless not). But, again, I would
love to see birur of the precise issue I have raised.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:50:15 -0500
From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject: Re: kollel class system
In my last post I made a serious typo. instead of the word "now" I
inadvertantly typed the word "nut". Please accept my apology and know
that it was an inadvertant mistake and not, G-d forbid an attempt to
slur.
HM
Actually, I understood it to be a typo for "But," which fits in context and
is not offensive and is the more likely typo (unless someone said the word
"nut" and HM just typed it).
NOW, I expect that R's Clark and Eidensohn will discuss whether we must
decide that either HM *or* his correspondent were both tzaddikim or, on ethe
other hand, whether they are both tzaddikim since the hacra'a of
overwhelming majority of gdolei yisrael has been to decide that . . . . By
the way, which gdolei yisrael was Rabbi Eidensohn talking about? . . .
B'chavod
NW

Eli Clark writes:
"This is hardly a ringing endorsement of both as tzadikim. It is a
pragmatic policy, and one that reflects a surprising lack of concern
regarding the reliability of the Torah of two noted talmidei hakhamim."
Not to injure myself chas v'shalom by intruding on this discussion, but I
understand from the above that if we could determine through clear,
scientifically irrefutable proof that RYEibbushitz *was* a Sabbatean or
believed in Sh.Zvi as moshiach, then we would be obligated to refrain from
learning the Ahavas Yonasan, Urim V'Tumim, etc., etc. and possibly bury/burn
his books? If so, can we geta source on this? Thanks.
NW

Noah Witty wrote:
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:50:15 -0500
> From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
> Subject: Re: kollel class system
>
> In my last post I made a serious typo. instead of the word "now" I
> inadvertantly typed the word "nut". Please accept my apology and know
> that it was an inadvertant mistake and not, G-d forbid an attempt to
> slur.
>
> HM
>
> Actually, I understood it to be a typo for "But," which fits in context and
> is not offensive and is the more likely typo (unless someone said the word
> "nut" and HM just typed it).
> NOW, I expect that R's Clark and Eidensohn will discuss whether we must
> decide that either HM *or* his correspondent were both tzaddikim or, on ethe
> other hand, whether they are both tzaddikim since the hacra'a of
> overwhelming majority of gdolei yisrael has been to decide that . . . . By
> the way, which gdolei yisrael was Rabbi Eidensohn talking about? . . .
>
> B'chavod
> NW
Bow that I reread my post I must admit that you are prorbably right!
HM:)

>
> Sammy Ominsky says
>
> Steve katz asked:
>
> > How can we explain the difference of how the menorah is depicted on the
> > arch of titus and how it is described by the Rambam?
>
>
> I believe the common explanation is that the Romans didn't get THE
> menorah, only one of several that were in the Beit HaMikdash. A lesser
> one, so to speak.
>
However, we also pictures of the Menorah from the houses of
Cohanim right next to the Temple.
There are in fact differences between these pictures and those on
the arch of Titus. This is mainly regarding the base of the Menorah.
However, both sets show a rounded set of arms for the 7 candles.
As indicated it is assumed that the pictures in Jerisalem are more accurate
as the priests worked regularly in the Temple and the houses are
a few hundred feet from the Temple complex.
Chanukah Sameach,
Eli Turkel

>>In fact it seems that the main concern of R Gamliel and Shammai was whether
the student was "tocho cbaro" meaning that the student possesses qualities
that will ensure that it will be applied properly. Teaching Torah to
someone who may misuse it is such a legitimate concern that it justified,
in their opinion, selective entrance criteria. B. Hillel maintained that
mass dissemination justifies the risk of potential misuse by certain
individuals.
Regards,
Avraham Allswang
<<
Ein Hochi Nami. That dovetails weel to the point made earlier: IE the criteria
for keeping elemnts of the Masorah as "eilitist" were terminated by the Haamidu
Talmidim Haarbei concept. At taht point R. Gamleil and Shammai were still
cautious to protect the Torah from a TOO WIDE dissemination that might include
unworthy types. However, even they (according to your thesis) would be far more
liberal than the highly restrictive rule of previous doros (my thesis)
Gut Shabbos, chodesh & chanuko
Rich Wolpoe,

>>And yet we see that Avraham made this comment while in P'lishtim, which is
part of the promised land ( as we see when HaShem told Yitzchak to remain in
P'lishtim, and not travel to Egypt ). This might be a proof to Yaakov's point
of view, but not to Shimon & Levi.
Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ<<
Ein Hochi Nami, And Shimon and Levi's point is that this land is our land and
we are home (in contradistinction to Aram).
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

The Meshech Chochma on P' VaYishlach writes that there is an issur for a B"N
to be chovel himself; the residents of Shchem failed to be mal l'shem geirus
and were therefore chayav misah. If so, what did Yosef hope to accomplish by
forcing the Mitzrim to be mal (Rashi 41:55) and potentially violate an issur
misah ? Gur Arye cryptically writes "yesh bazeh davar nifla meod..." - any
ideas?
-Chaim B.
(P.S. Even if there is no technical issur for one B"N to cause another to
violate an issur (is there?) why create such a situation?)

We ignored the more obvious solution: the Rambam could very well have been
wrong. His opinion about the shape of the arms of the menorah is a da'as
yachid, anyway. The rabim agree with the arcs shown on the arch of Titus
haRasha.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6009 days!
micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 18-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Our moderator posed the following question:
<<
Is there an example where "eis la'asos" nullifies a real issur?
>>
Without looking at sources ( none handy presently ), I wonder if hora'as
sha'ah works under the principle of ais la'asos. For if it does, we see
outright issurim ( sh'chutey chutz with Eliyahu at Har HaCarmel comes to mind
immediately ) nullified using such logic.
Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ